D&D 5E Building a better Paladin

Hi, everyone.

Let's talk Paladins. What works about them? What would you change and why? How can they be improved?

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

They are not all Weasels by default

Taking Level 1 in Paladin should turn you into a Weasel.......

Well, lowkey would say the best way to improve the paladin is to make them ammunition for catapults...


If you want my opinion, I am not a fan of making the paladin a "bad guy". I know why they did, because everyone and their grandma's dog seems to want an anti-paladin ever since the actual anti-paladin came out in AD&D. In the current edition, the Oath of Vengeance doesn't sit well with me personally. How it feels to me is that they basically are saying, "We know paladins are holy warriors, but hey, don't worry about role playing the devout holy aspect, but keep the powerful mechanical bits." I.e., they really seem to imply that you can skip all the devout stuff if you want. IMO, the role playing parts were there to help mitigate the class. You got all these powers, but the drawback is that you had to actually play your PC like an extremely devout follower, almost like a fanatical. After all, why would a deity give all these extra powers to a person unless they pushed that deity's agenda. Again, that's just my personal tastes though.

That being said, I know removing that will not be a solution for most people. So....

What I would change is getting rid of divine smite. Or at the very least limiting it to demons/devils/undead only. By allowing it to everything, that can cause paladins to overshadow fighters, especially if you allow frequent rests. I would probably make it more like the favored enemy thing of the ranger. Upon creation, depending on theme, choose one type of of monster, and you can divine smite them. What I see all to often is that paladins don't even cast spells anymore--they just save it for divine smites. And as a player of a cleric in our biggest campaign, it would be nice from a party contribution stand point if the paladin also used spells to help the party, especially when I was low, rather than "save them" for divine smite.

Sacrosanct said:

What I would change is getting rid of divine smite. Or at the very least limiting it to demons/devils/undead only. By allowing it to everything, that can cause paladins to overshadow fighters, especially if you allow frequent rests. I would probably make it more like the favored enemy thing of the ranger. Upon creation, depending on theme, choose one type of of monster, and you can divine smite them. What I see all to often is that paladins don't even cast spells anymore--they just save it for divine smites. And as a player of a cleric in our biggest campaign, it would be nice from a party contribution stand point if the paladin also used spells to help the party, especially when I was low, rather than "save them" for divine smite.

Click to expand...

I was going to suggest allowing smiting only once per turn, but I like your idea much better. Paladins can still smack down certain creatures, but with your fix, divine smite would no longer be the most used (by far) ability of the paladin.

Paul Smart said:

Let's talk Paladins. What works about them?

Click to expand...

They can at least be LN or LE, now.

From a player perspective, they're a very solid and effective class - a very tough/hard-hitting tank with substantial support functionality, as well - with a clear concept (OK, 3 concepts).

What would you change and why?

Click to expand...

Probably just cut it as superfluous - if I were using MCing.

How can they be improved?

Click to expand...

They're 'good' enough already, in too many senses.
So, it's not so much that I think the paladin needs to be improved as that the system could be improved. If MCing were just a little better-executed, and assumed rather than optional, and/or the Cleric design was a little different, the Paladin wouldn't be strictly necessary to cover the archetypes it does, a Cleric of an 'Honor' domain might do it, or if the Fighter were much-improved, a 1/2-caster sub-class comparable to the EK. :shrug:

Sacrosanct said:

I.e., they really seem to imply that you can skip all the devout stuff if you want. IMO, the role playing parts were there to help mitigate the class. You got all these powers, but the drawback is that you had to actually play your PC like an extremely devout follower, almost like a fanatical. After all, why would a deity give all these extra powers to a person unless they pushed that deity's agenda. Again, that's just my personal tastes though.

Click to expand...

While I can see the appeal of this kind of thinking from the point of view of the fiction, this kind of design philosophy died (or was supposed to) with AD&D, when paladins (along with a couple of other classes) were basically fighters++. You not only benefited from the ridiculous stat requirements to qualify for the class in the first place, but got all these additional powers and abilities above and beyond that as well. All while trying to 'restrict' the class with a vow of poverty and nebulous codes of conduct that the DM was supposed to use as a bludgeon on you if you got out of line (according to his/her way of thinking that is). While this could work in certain groups and play styles, it did tend to cause...problems. Generally speaking, balancing mechanical advantages with role playing restrictions is poor design, especially since the modern paladin is not supposed to be mechanically better than the other classes overall any longer.

That said, I can see how smite might be a bit of a problem, and like the suggestion of limiting it to either once per turn or certain types of opponents.

Gadget said:

While I can see the appeal of this kind of thinking from the point of view of the fiction, this kind of design philosophy died (or was supposed to) with AD&D, when paladins (along with a couple of other classes) were basically fighters++. You not only benefited from the ridiculous stat requirements to qualify for the class in the first place, but got all these additional powers and abilities above and beyond that as well. All while trying to 'restrict' the class with a vow of poverty and nebulous codes of conduct that the DM was supposed to use as a bludgeon on you if you got out of line (according to his/her way of thinking that is). While this could work in certain groups and play styles, it did tend to cause...problems. Generally speaking, balancing mechanical advantages with role playing restrictions is poor design, especially since the modern paladin is not supposed to be mechanically better than the other classes overall any longer.

That said, I can see how smite might be a bit of a problem, and like the suggestion of limiting it to either once per turn or certain types of opponents.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I know it's totally a personal preference issue, and one that is probably among a minority of gamers, and I would be totally shocked if they ever did something like that.

Wow, the vocal NERF DIVINE SMITE OMG minority pounced on this thread already. Surprise, surprise ...

The one thing I would change that genuinely bugs me about the Paladin would be increasing the Divine Smite spell slot damage cap to 6d8. I understand why the cap exists at all, but Paladins get 5th-level slots. And if I use a 5th-level slot on that feature, let it actually mean something, please.

One more addition I'd make, though maybe not so urgent, is giving the Paladin a CON save proficiency feature at a middle level. Probably Lv. 9, since they don't get anything at that level otherwise other than 3rd-level spells. Of all the classes who need to concentrate on spells, the Paladin could really stand to have this since they'll be in the thick of melee every time and take more hits. It'd free up an ASI/feat's worth of space, too, not having to take Resilient (CON).

Other than that, that's pretty much it. The Paladin is one of the most well designed classes in 5e, effective out of the box unlike the miserable 3e and 4e versions, and easily the best designed it's ever been.

Gladius Legis said:

Wow, the vocal NERF DIVINE SMITE OMG minority pounced on this thread already. Surprise, surprise ....

Click to expand...

No one has reacted like that. We've just mentioned things we'd probably change and the reasons why. No one is nearly as excited as you seem to think we are. I guess it's easier to disparage people that don't agree with you and paint them in a negative light though. shrug. And you have no idea if it's the minority or not. Strictly speaking, you are the minority in this thread, and we are the majority. According to what those words mean anyway...

Gladius Legis said:

The one thing I would change that genuinely bugs me about the Paladin would be increasing the Divine Smite spell slot damage cap to 6d8.... if I use a 5th-level slot on that feature, let it actually mean something, please.

Click to expand...

Maybe increase it to 6 dice for a 5th level slot, but make them d6s?

Because the Paladin is definitely not a class that needs moar power, but smite is hardly a problematic use of slots.

One more addition I'd make, though maybe not so urgent, is giving the Paladin a CON save proficiency feature at a middle level.

Click to expand...

Though I'd be up for just about every class getting more save proficiencies, the deficiency is probably least problematic for the Paladin.

The Paladin is one of the most well designed classes in 5e, effective out of the box unlike the miserable 3e and 4e versions, and easily the best designed it's ever been.

Click to expand...

It's one of the more powerful classes, certainly, probably the best of the fractional casters and/or 'melee types.' ...

Gadget said:

... this kind of design philosophy died (or was supposed to) with AD&D, when paladins (along with a couple of other classes) were basically fighters++. You not only benefited from the ridiculous stat requirements to qualify for the class in the first place, but got all these additional powers and abilities above and beyond that as well.

Click to expand...

The Paladin is still prettymuch a fighter++, just starting with a sub-set of the fighter (pally doesn't get all the combat styles, for instance).

All while trying to 'restrict' the class with a vow of poverty and nebulous codes of conduct that the DM was supposed to use as a bludgeon on you if you got out of line....Generally speaking, balancing mechanical advantages with role playing restrictions is poor design, especially since the modern paladin is not supposed to be mechanically better than the other classes overall any longer.

Click to expand...

Nod, but it can still look attractive to a DM who feels the Paladin is overshadowing a fighter with the same style in his game (though, really, playing overlapping characters like that isn't ideal in the first place).